Discord from a troubled marriage cannot justify implicating entire family: Delhi high court

The Delhi high court has held that matrimonial discord and the anguish arising from a troubled marriage cannot justify implicating an entire family in criminal proceedings unless specific allegations and individual roles are attributed to the persons concerned.In her 52-page verdict, the judge added that husbands, too, should not be subjected to criminal prosecution without sufficient cause. (PTI file)A bench of justice Madhu Jain, in her verdict delivered on Wednesday, expressed concern over the tendencies to implicate the husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes through sweeping allegations of cruelty.The judge said that criminal prosecution carries consequences that extend beyond the courtroom, impacting an individual's reputation, livelihood, and family life, and that the law must provide effective protection to women subjected to cruelty; it must also ensure that relatives are not prosecuted merely on account of their relationship with the husband.In her 52-page verdict, she added that husbands, too, should not be subjected to criminal prosecution without sufficient cause.“Before parting, this Court wishes to express its concern over the tendencies today to implicate the husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes through sweeping allegations of cruelty. The anguish arising from a troubled marriage is understandable, but it cannot justify drawing the entire family into criminal proceedings without a specific role being attributed to the persons concerned,” the court said.It added, “A criminal prosecution has consequences that extend beyond the courtroom, affecting reputation, livelihood and family life. The law must therefore afford effective protection to a woman subjected to cruelty, while ensuring that relatives are not made to face prosecution merely because of their relationship with the husband, and even the husbands should not be, without cause, penalised.”The caseThe court delivered the verdict while upholding the trial court’s order discharging Mayank Singhvi, husband of the late flight attendant Anissia Batra, from the charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide and his parents from the charges of cruelty and causing dowry death.Anissia, who used to work with a German airline, allegedly died by suicide in South Delhi’s Panchsheel Park on July 13, 2018. Following Anissia’s death, an FIR was registered under Sections 304B (dowry death), 498A (cruelty), 306 (abetment to suicide) read with Section 34 of the IPC, at the behest of Anissia’s mother, Nillum Batra. She alleged that Mayank had repeatedly demanded money from her daughter and held him and his parents responsible for her daughter’s death.The trial court in 2019 discharged Mayank for dowry death and his parents for dowry death and cruelty, and directed framing charges against Mayank for cruelty and abetment to suicide. This verdict was then challenged by Mayank, Anissia’s mother and the Delhi police.Court sets aside trial court’s order against husbandThe court also set aside the trial court’s order framing charges against Mayank for abetment to suicide and cruelty, observing that even if a deceased woman leaves behind a message holding another person responsible for her suicide, such an allegation, by itself, is insufficient to establish the offence of abetment to suicide."The deceased's attribution of responsibility to another person is a relevant piece of evidence, but it does not by itself determine whether the person named has committed the offence under Section 306 of IPC," the Court observed.In her verdict, Justice Jain said that when a daughter speaks of violence or persistent mistreatment in her marriage, her concerns must not be dismissed by asking her to adjust or compromise. She emphasised that fear of social stigma or disapproval should never prevent parents from providing her with a safe home, adding that a daughter's return to her parental home must never be viewed as a matter of shame for the family.“This Court also wishes to emphasise the importance of timely support from the parental family when a daughter speaks of violence or persistent mistreatment in her marriage. Her concerns should not be brushed aside with advice to adjust, nor should a fear of social disapproval stand in the way of offering her a safe home. A daughter’s return to her parents should never be regarded as a matter of shame for them. Preserving a marriage cannot take precedence over her safety and dignity, and support should not have to await an irretrievable tragedy,” the court said.